Indigenous Voice to Parliament

[David]

[watt price tully]

^ Excellent research David but what would you inner city latte types know (although living in the Hamptons is not quite inner city)

[think positive]

[What'sinaname]

Wow...a scare campaign based on bullshit...didn't see that coming...

"On July 1st the WA - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act will be begin. Any home on land over 1100sqm will need approval to do anything on their land.

Between the fees & levies from State governments & permits and approvals from local councils, it has become nearly impossible to do what you want on your own land. Now this."

Don't see even a hint of irony in these two comments from your post Skids?

The "scare" campaign seems pretty real. And I'm shocked that it's all about money.

According to Seven News, Whadjuk Aboriginal Corporation chief executive David Collard told land care groups they could not proceed with the weekend’s events until a demand for $2.5 million from a $10 million river restoration fund was resolved.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/envi ... 72ff9b206c

[Skids]

You're shocked.... I'm not, not one bit.

It's always about money. My nephews, and their mob, recently went to Geraldton for some 'meeting'. They all recieved $500 each plus a fuel and accommodation allowance.... they had a great, funded weekend away.

My 18 yo nephew wouldn't know his arsehole from his elbow. He be lovin' the cash.

[stui magpie]

Maybe that's one reason we need The Voice, so dumb bureaucratic flogs don't just round up random blackfellas and pay them to be "consulted" so they can tick a box.

[What'sinaname]

^ or maybe The Voice is just a way of embedding bureaucratic floggness into the Constitution so it lasts forever.

[stui magpie]

^

Like parliament?

[Bucks5]

You know that councils and business are paying big bucks for welcome to country speakers, smoking ceremonies, indigenous art etc, right?

It is a scam. My wife runs a creche and contacted the land council to see if they could organise for a First Nations woman to show the children how they sew possum skins. The demand was that 6 women come at $500 each.

[stui magpie]

It's only a scam if she said yes. I would've said, Nah, 1 woman for $350.

yeah more businesses are getting into the Welcome to Country and other stuff, and a small minority are making good coin filling those gaps, which doesn't help the other 99.9% of First Nations Peoples.

[think positive]

lucky for the poor possums!

[pietillidie]

[David]

[stui magpie]

^

It's murky. P4S could probably explain it clearly but the short answer (in my understanding) is No, First Nations People's weren't considered part of "The People" referred to in the original constitution. The weren't counted in census and there were sections in the original constitution that expressly excluded them, and left their management to the states.

Yes, they were considered British Citizens but only by a sort of default, otherwise they would have been stateless.

Anyway, the official Yes and No cases are here at this AEC Link.

https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/pamphlet.htm

[pietillidie]

^My understanding is as Stui explains. You can't be 'the people' if you don't have representation, something which in turn undermines the very pretext of a constitution. I quoted the introduction above because it clearly assumes representation, and mentions all founding parties bar one.

In a similar manner, you can't have legal settlement as claimed without a treaty, which implies that a proper fix would also include overt constutional recognition, as awarded to every other party concerned.

The British Empire signed goodness knows how many treaties because that's how settlement was best ratified and law founded by their own standards.

Of course, the law is still an ass, but the absence of proper law has clearly made all that follows harder to rectify, hence this very discussion.